The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. A redirect to the merge target should be created after the content is merged. NorthAmerica1000 04:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illridewithyou[edit]

Illridewithyou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the hashtag was a response to a specific event, and is appropriately covered in the article about that event. It is not sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although an apparent peripheral event surrounding an event that was over-covered by media, and social media, the actual context of a twitter controversy about ethnic relations in Australia is sufficiently stand alone as a subject, in view of the phenomenon of the political and social tensions that surround inter-religious and inter-ethnic relations in the larger cities. satusuro 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - in view of various comments on this page satusuro 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment - this is nothing to do with the response below... satusuro 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing preventing the inclusion of the hashtag in relevant articles, though it is not necessarily appropriate to do so as generic unsourced social commentary. Controversy about ethnic relations in Australia may indeed warrant its own article, but this article should not be used as a coatrack for that purpose. Feel free to improve articles such as racism in Australia and racial violence in Australia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to keep this article merely because it is believed that another article is inaccurately reporting something (which would make this a POV fork). There are currently concerns with the main article regarding breaches of WP:LABEL with respect to calling the event 'terrorism' in the absence of strong expert sources calling it such, but that is not a basis for independent notability of the subject of this article. (I wasn't aware the editor who substantially edited this article had been blocked, but it is completely irrelevant here. An AfD discussion cannot make a judgement on unblocking an editor. If the editor wishes to be unblocked, they will need to follow the separate request process.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor was blocked for an edit on this article, so I would think it was relevant. I am sure that there is some policy somewhere about blocking someone for creating an article then putting that article up for AFD straight afterwards. KrampusC (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you twice, the editor was blocked primarily for another, more serious, BLP violation. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you told me twice, there is no need to tell me a third time. It comes across as rather aggressive and heavy handed. And since you are referring to something that I can't see, I am only going to refer to things that I can see, and that this does not seem to be a BLP violation. KrampusC (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware the editor (who technically was not the creator of the article, but who I later learned was the substantial contributor) had been blocked when I submitted the AfD. The fact that the editor was blocked has no bearing on the reasons already indicated for recommending deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he is to immediately withdraw his false accusation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You, sir, need to calm down, and stop with the false accusations!!! I have tried to be civil with you but you are being incredibly nasty towards me. I have nothing to apologise for, because I did not make any false accusation. I said that you did not seem to have genuinely made this AFD, as it would seem to me that it was based around the person being banned, which, from what I can see, was done rashly based on an inaccurate appraisal of something being a violation of BLP, when it was in fact just 1 word different to an exact quote, which is nowhere near an actual BLP violation. I am sure that anyone following this would agree that I have been more than kind with you. I wrote on your talk page, and I have been very considerate. You need to stop with the attitude. Questioning what is going on is not the same thing as a false accusation. You need to learn the difference and stop assuming bad faith. Thank you. KrampusC (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not helping yourself - "it relates to this AFD nomination, and whether the AFD nomination was made in good faith" - is easy to understand. We know what you meant. We're not idiots. Posing a personal attack as a question doesn't make it less of a personal attack. St★lwart111 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been explained to KrampusC—repeatedly—that the other editor was blocked (not banned) for edits on the Talk page of another article. I will state it again as simply as I can: The nomination of this article has nothing to do with the editor, User:The Almightey Drill. When I submitted the AfD, I a) didn't know the other editor had been blocked, and b) didn't know he had edited this page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (NB This editor is a blocked sockpuppet - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • I've struck the !vote accordingly. ansh666 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main aspect of the hostage crisis that was raised in the news was whether or not it was terrorism, and the fears that it would lead to race-related rioting, as happened in the Cronulla riots. This hashtag seems to have calmed down any thought of race-related rioting, and there were no anti-Islam attacks as a result, while otherwise there might have been. This is probably why it got over 1 million Google hits. In many ways, this hashtag was more important than the hostage crisis itself, at least for people in Australia. KrampusC (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single part of that preposterous claim is verifiable. You are welcome to a personal opinion about such things but inventing a potential threat of race riots (based on completely unrelated and disparate racial tensions a decade earlier) and claiming that this flash-in-the-pan Twitter hashtag prevented said fictional threat from eventuating is just ridiculous. That's like claiming I cured cancer by re-tweeting the Cancer Council's Christmas message. St★lwart111 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that "this hashtag was more important than the hostage crisis itself" is spurious and, at the very least, debatable. The claim that the hashtag prevented riots is entirely unfounded. Correlation does not imply causation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More